New Ocean Scorecard Gives World a 60%

We live in a world obsessed with numbers – college rankings, baseball scores, exam results – and now we have one to tell us what’s happening to our oceans.

According to a study outlining the first results of the Ocean Health Index, recently founded by Conservation International and other organizations, the entire world’s oceans score 60 out of a hundred for their ability to deliver benefits to both nature and people. Individual country scores range from 36 to 86, with the U.S. chalking up a 63 and China following behind with a 53. A paltry 5 percent of countries hit the 70 point mark, while 32 percent lingered below 50. And, as might be expected, developed countries generally did better than developing countries, thanks to their more robust economies and greater capacity for environmental stewardship (though Poland and Singapore scored a relatively pitiful 42 and 48 respectively).

That’s a lot of numbers, but the science behind them is fascinating, largely because the architects of the Ocean Health Index have made huge efforts to account for the world’s astonishing complexity in their calculations. First of all, the index doesn’t simply lump together science-driven metrics of ocean health like water pH and carbon dioxide levels. Rather, it zones in on ten vital ways in which nature and humans rely on the seas, including biodiversity, food, tourism, and even “sense of place,” and then examines how well the oceans are able to deliver those things. To do this, the researchers assign a score to each of their ten measures for the oceans they examine, and find the index score based on the weighted sum of these individual scores. They make sure to include in their ratings the status of each measure as it stands right now as well as what it might be in the future based on a mathematical model.

What makes this index particularly different from the rest is that the scientists have steered clear of a purely “protectionist” approach that aims to preserve nature from human hands. Instead, they have also considered how “extractive users” of the ocean – those who value the sea for its food and natural resources – might view the natural world.

“Most ecosystem assessments focus solely on the negative impacts of humans on nature,” the study authors wrote. “Although focus on benefits to people is not new to management or science, it has yet to become the common currency of assessment.”

Also worth noting is that the Ocean Health Index score for each country may seem counterintuitive based on how certain places score on individual measures of ocean health. For example, one might expect a low score for Russia because its oceans fared poorly in providing food and natural products. But because the country seems to do so well with clean water and biodiversity, its overall index score was a fairly impressive 67. Further, two countries with similar scores – like the U. S. and the U. K., at 63 and 62 respectively – could be getting those scores from very different facets of ocean health. “Coastal protection” and “coastal livelihoods and economies” bumped up the U. S. score, while the U. K. did well with providing food and natural products.

Holistic though the index is, there are still some holes in it. The High Seas, the parts of the ocean that don’t belong to a particular State, haven’t been scored yet for a lack of data, for example. But it’s great to have a simple number that encompasses such a trove of information. And perhaps even better is the increasing recognition that humans and nature are inextricably linked, and that conservation measures must be met with an eye for the needs of a growing human population. We both need each other – it’s nice to have a scorecard that acknowledges that.

Tara Thean is a contributor at TIME. Find her on Twitter at @tarathean. You can also continue the discussion on TIME’s Facebook page and on Twitter at @TIME.

India and China alone account for over 50% of the garbage and pollution in the oceans. And that comes from their irresponsibly high populations, and in India's case, an irresponsibly fast growing population. Indians have no concept of birth control and family planning. Each family will always have 2 or 3 more kids than they can feed. If they get enough to feed the 2 or 3 extra kids, they'll just have more kids.

Here in the US, at any given time, 3 out of 4 Indian women is always pregnant. I see it all around me where I live, and there are a lot of Indians where I live.

Here in the US, at any given time, 3 out of 4 Indian women is wealthier and more financially stable than the average American. Now, that statistic may be as made up as yours, but it's certainly closer to reality.

Most Indian immigrants here were wealthy and educated (or seeking education) in their home country, which is exactly why the US was willing to have them come aboard and offer their skills.

I didn't find specific data regarding oceanic pollution, but looking at CO2 emissions, the US has a much higher rate per capita than China or India. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...

As to your claim about having too many children to support, that's the same as any underdeveloped country; look at African nations as another example, or perhaps at America before the Industrial Revolution. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/art...

Perhaps you ought to do some more travelling before judging the world.

Go back and read the title of the article on this page. Does it have anything to do with people's income, skill levels, immigration policies or any of the irrelevant points you've rattle off in your post? No.

The problems I point out are strictly about rampant population growth. Garbage is garbage, and pollution is pollution. It makes no difference to the ocean what income the jackass that generated the pollution had.

Indians have a cultural propensity to increase their populations faster than they can sustain them. It's true of their poor peasants in India, popping out their kids on the sidewalks, and it's true of the ones here who are just as irresponsible, only they get to do it on the dime of the companies stupid enough to hire Indian women, not knowing that the first thing Indian women do upon starting work is to get pregnant, take a 3-month maternity leave, come back, get pregnant again and repeat the cycle.

Please point out where in the article it says top score was 100.@phearis:disqus Here you go - "According to a study outlining the first results of the Ocean Health Index, recently founded by Conservation International and other organizations, the entire world’s oceans score 60 out of a hundred for their ability to deliver benefits to both nature and people." hmmm, did the fact that they spelled out "hundred" confuse someone?

So if my students took a test and the best grade was an 83 out of 100, that student would not get an A, he would get a B on our scale (1o% for every grade starting at 100%, 90 A, 80 B, 70 C, 60 D, and 50 - F.)

The United States scored a 63 out of 100. 100 being a perfect score on this scale. No country got a 100. The best, according to this article, was an 86. Compared to the rest of the World, we are in the top 80%. If we were the only country graded, we scored a 63%. America is passing but barely. D is for Diploma.

@ATPMSD - Please point out where in the article it says top score was 100. Who was the one who didn't read the article? *wink* Me thinks someone is hung up on a scoring system that doesn't apply to this survey.

If you read the article, you would see that the oceans score a 60 out of 100 and the individual countries ranged from 36 to 86. That's out of 100 genius! So yes, a 63 would be . . . wait for it . . . wait for it . . . a D! As in D is for Dummy!

did you read the article? a 60/100 is more or less ok? according to the study, the oceans scored 60/100 "for their ability to deliver benefits to both nature and people." That doesn't sound good to me, it sounds like the oceans ability to benefit nature and people has been significantly hampered and I'm sure we'll be seeing those effects in our daily lives sooner rather than later.

My father who was a Marine Biologist many years ago could see all of this happening. His mantra was "There are too goddam many people in this world". We will always need more and more resources to feed, house and clothe the exploding populations.

No one ever wants to talk about the real problem....over population. We complain about energy use, greenhouse gases, hunger, unemployment, poor education, over crowded cities, etc, etc, etc. Those are symptoms of overpopulation.